and they want to get there in a safe way. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i am paul skillbeck and a 15 year resident of san francisco and live near van ness in the main thoroughfare for cycleelists of san francisco. i ride by bike everyday. no way i suggest that a child ride a bike in on polk street and what is being done and as others have outlined san francisco streets are not safe for cyclists and you have a target 20% by the year 2020. i wouldn't bet on that. no way. things have to

change. right now value proposition for cyclists? why should they ride in san francisco? the roads are dangerous and motorists are aggressive. i get back to his point and he's saying there is more to do with infrastructure. san francisco residents need to be told by the city why they should take up cycling. they need to be encouraged. there's an organization called the noarj california high school cycling league about 60 to 70 cycling teams in northern california. guess how many are in san francisco? anybody? zero. for a city that is aiming to have 10-20 road share of bicycle in the future that is not a encouraging statistic but i thank you for your work and for introducing this today. >> thank you and i think mr. hill from the cac suggested

that infrastructure is important but education and advocacy is a critical part of it as well. next speaker and if there is anyone else that would like to speak, anyone that has been called or anyone else come forward now. we're going to close public comment in a moment. >>i am jazz [inaudible] and a a lot year resident of san francisco and i would like to echo the statements of the last speaker. i feel so much is going to be window dressing. i know i have spoken to you in the past. if you want the improvements you need to get absolutely radical on this. the whole stop sign thing is a disaster with cycling. you are encouraging cyclists to break the law every time or in a position of breaking the law. if you know about cycling the energy you need to use when you get going. it makes the journey stilted.

it takes longer. if you want to have a smooth flow of cyclistses than reorder the junctions or at least provide corridors and what we have at portland and seattle and minneapolis we have the space in terms of wide avenues and boulevards and also we have the other advantage is that relatively small area. 7 miles by 7 miles so you could create these avenues, absolutely safe corridors, one way, one way, and i don't know how -- you're going to have to put up -- get with the merchants associations. i know that's difficult but that's how radical you're going to have to get. you have to literal get with sacramento and change laws traffic laws. these are our own city laws. i commend your efforts but i hope you get a lot more serious on this. thank you.

>> thank you. is there anyone else that would like to speak? then public comment is closed and i would like to thank supervisor avalos who took the load on a ballot measure for next year and the recommendations and the budget analyst report is helpful for the mayor's task force and the other measure moving forward. i wanted to thank the mta for being here. several staff -- i know janet was here earlier but thanks to the staff and i wanted to thank the bicycle coalition for being here and mr. hill from the community advisory committee and others as well. really quickly i wanted to say a number of critical points were brought up. i think leah said "if we build it they will come" and i think

the three-5% mode share has been increased over the years but much more needs to be done in reaching the ambitious goals as others have pointed out it's really important that we aggressively take an approach to improving the infrastructure but also education and advocacy as well. i wanted to say that mr. jawa from the conservation of league of voters mentioned bicycling for bicycleelists but for others and the equity issue and others brought that up and sustainable environment is critical and alternative transportation including biking is critical and this is about a healthier san francisco as others brought up as well, so full build out benefits many for many, many reasons and health and safety and for others the environment. i wanted to say that the budget analyst made some suggestions of having the mta, and i think it was said

there are already efforts to come back to not only the mta's board but the board of supervisors with a progress reports. i think there is a recommendation from the 2011 controller's report on a number of those items and i am guessing those are already being analyzed and lookinga at reports and the budget analyst reported to us from the recommendation and six month report backs to the budget committee on progress, and my hope even from the five years ago from the bicycle plan from 2008 i think it was even goal number eight aggressively increasing funding for bicycling is something that the city has not lived up to, so my hope out of this discussion and even for the mta to have better tracking and some of the other suggestions that we get a

better bang for our existing buck and that we are looking at strategically improving our spending so that we can truly be a bike friendly city so with they just wanted to move that we continue this hearing to the call of the chair and that we continue to work with the mta to look at the additional scenarios that were presented in this report and how we might meet different funding goals as well but that's my motion that we continue this to the call of the chair. did you want to make any remarks supervisor avalos? >> thank you supervisor mar and i just want to thank you for bringing it this hearing forward and the budget analyst for their work and the staff at the mta and the bicycle coalition and their efforts and make sure it's safe and we're building greater infrastructure for cycling and

overall we're putting more funding available for that as well. i had a conversation with with leah sham last name in preparation of tonight and one thing she mentioned besides increasing funding amounts for investments and infrastructure is paying great deal attention to project delivery to make sure we have the track being mechanisms, the plan and the design and implementation that will make the projects move quickly and get on the ground where they can really make a difference and people experience's of biking in san francisco so i support continuing this conversation and i welcome greater efforts with the mta and ways i can help the mta with their planning and efforts and implementing a greater infrastructure for cycling in the city. >> thank you. so the motion to continue the call of the chair. can we do that without objection? thank you. and let me ask madam clerk do we have

any other business before us today? >> that concludes the business for today. >> thank you everyone for .bein here. meeting adjourned >> just a little pack of pad located at the bottom of russian hill, the secret garden with an intimate and captivating appeal. carefully tucked away, at the bottom of lumbar street, the

park makes the top of our list for the most intimate picnic setting. avoid all tourist cars by hopping on the cable car. or the 30, 45, 41 or 91 bus. this is the place to tell someone something special or the place to declare to friends and family the commitment you two share. reservations are available with rec and park for this adorable >> the regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission will now come to order. >> i would like to extend a welcome to the newest commissioner, mr. peter king i was not here for the last

hearing and so i just want to extend my personal welcome and glad you are aboard. >> thank you very much, madam chair and it is good to be here and i am enjoying on being on the commission and i am looking forward to serving you and the other members as well. >> and we look forward to you. >> any way, roll call. commissioner king? >> here. >> commissioner hur is excused, as is vice chair renne, he is also excused. commissioner andrews. >> here. >> and with that we have a quorum and we will proceed with the day's business. is there any public comment. are there any matters before we move ahead on the agenda? >> first up, the discussion and

possible action on draft amendment, to the sunshine ordinance regulation 67.33-1 director st croix. >> expanding the number of ways that folks that have to file the sunshine ordinance declarations and the state ethics declarations currently they have to be filed at the office in paper fork. we are expanding this to allow them to send fax or e-mail or regular mail in order to safety that obligation and this will make it easier for folks to file those forms on a timely basis. additionally, we are authorizing the commission to set up a format for all

electronic filing in the future. we don't have a platform for the electronic filing for these two forms yet. but we plan to at some point. as we generally are moving toward all electronic filing for the things that we do. i would just like to say that anything that we can do to make the filing for candidate and their staff easier, i think is an important... >> these actually effect the city, office holders and city employees who have to file these. >> right. >> i agree with with mr. st. croix that this is something that is overdue in regard to all city activities that allow for electronic use of things rather than get us out of the paper age, so that it is

certainly a good idea. >> i have observation which of what must be a typo or a mistake. in regards to the attachment, and the form for the certificate of ethics training. that is involved and attached and this died and i believe that there is a mistake, in the first bullet point, where it says please review the following to determine when you must complete the training. it says if you are completing training in 2013 you must complete your ethics training within two years of your last training and here is where i think that the mistake is, for example, if you are satisfied in your training on march 3, 2013, you must complete another ethics training session by march second, 2014 and that is

a contradiction. if it says that you have two years that should be, you must complete another ethics training session by march second 2015. and i think that should... and >> we will change it. >> okay. >> i figured this is an update. >> it is an update, the one that i filled out which is the one from before and actually had it correct for two years. the problems were not with the forms just historically this one. >> any public comment on this matter? >> you can actually if you want to adopt them in a block. >> do i have a motion? do we need a motion that?

do i hear a motion to adopt both of these changes? >> so moved. >> i second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> aye. >> okay. and those two are passed and we move on to the next one. >> okay. >> the next draft regulation >> all right there are four proposed changes here. and what we are trying to do is elected official whose travel are required, sorry. >> sorry to interrupt, the city attorney, and i want to make sure that we took the public comment on the last items? >> we did and there was no public comment. and seeing that there is only one member of the audience, i did not ask for additional public comment. >> thank you very much. >> so elected officials have to

file and what the costs going to be and this is one of the requirements that we get a lot of questions about from the elected officials and the staffs and so we thought that if we would put the advice that we generally get them in the actual words and regulations it might make it easier to follow through these requirements. and so, the first discussion point is tracks the two changes that we just adopted and again, this one can be filed not only in person but either by e-mail, regular mail or fax.

>> if the individuals contribute to the cost of the trip, we always tell the officials to file a single form for all of the donor and we just put that practice into writing and the third decision point is basically i sort of follow the money. and frequently outside of the organizations, will donate to a for example, a sister city, committee. and in order to help defray the cost of these travels, and so we consider the original giver of the money toward the trip to be the source of those funds and not the intermediatary committee. and so when the elected official accepts travel, and in these situations, they have to report where the original source of the money was, or is. and then the last point is also, very simple, because of the elected officials must report the cost of their trip before they go, frequently they

have to use estimates. and so, what we have already allowed them to do is upon returning from the trip when they have the exact figures is to amend their report so that it reflects the amount numbers rather than the estimated numbers and again, this is a current practice and we are just putting it into words. >> all right, if i may just add a couple of things. and actually director st. croix was talking about agenda item number 6, and not number five. and with respect to the regulations, and the subsection c, the staff has is suggesting a couple of amendments to that, and one is on the second line, of on page 3, under one. and we suggest using the word

may rather than shall. so that it reads a contradiction reads in whole or in part to fund the trip from the repitore to the elected official may constitute a gift for the purposes of the pra and the conduct code. and there are also instances where they would not be deemed as gift and we want to make that clear. we also want to add a sentence just to make clear that this is what is in the state law right now and so the sentence that we would like to add at the end of the sentence is except for sbpc regulation and regulation 9845 and the non-profit organization funding the trip if not the true source of a foot travel if it is merely an intermediatary for the contribution. and i apologize for skipping an

agenda item. >> we will go back to. >> but since we are discussing this aspect, shall we, this particular change, on this decision point and commissioners. i think that it is desirable and certainly it is greater guidance looks very guidance and necessary guidance to someone who is in this position and so i would favor it. >> okay. >> and again, you can do the fourth. and this is to send off if you want to. >> and i think that is anything that makes it easier, for elected officials candidates, staff, to do something, i think that that is something that we should always try to incorporate. any comment, any public comment on this matter?

>> hearing none, now, do we want to cover the other, there are four decisions. >> if we make a motion to adopt all four? >> okay, all right. >> and the staff suggests changes. >> do i hear a motion to that effect? >> i move that we adopt these four decision points with the recommended staff changes. >> i second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the motion passes. >> now, we will go back to the draft regulation having to do with the contract. >> okay. so, certain people who have contracts with the city that are less than six months old, and people who are seeking contracts with the city, are prohibited from making contributions to political candidates, for local office.

and so it is incumbent upon the candidates to try to figure out who among their contributers are not allowed to make these, you know? and to not take these contributions. people who are band from making contributions are also not supposed to make them into the law. >> some candidates are using a disclaimer on the contribution forms and that say, if you have a contract with the city, that is less than 6 months old or if you are in negotiations on a contract you may not make contributions. so you have to check off a box that says i am not one of these people. this will, this may be able to give the candidate some measure of having to do the due diligence and it is difficult to know and weed out who the contributers that should not be making contributions. and it is not mandatory, but we feel that it will be helpful to candidates and the contributers

if they violate the law. >> the ownness is also on the contractor itself. >> and it was a contribution, and the candidate who takes it. >> they are both liability. >> and they share, and so this essentially would, put those people, and potentially in that situation, where they should not be making a contribution. now, give them the knowledge, you should not do this. and someone who has got a contract with the city is much more likely to know it than the people that they are making the contributions to. so we are giving some measure of relief to candidates, who used this language in order to help the contributers who may be in this category. >> and this would be on all of the or any kind of printed material? all printed material, and if

they are soliciting it. >> well, this could be on, and again as the director st. croix said that this is not mandatory and although, many committee and many candidates and their committees already have such a language, were just suggesting this as a way for candidates who have a very difficult time figuring out who is bared under section 1.26 to have a way out if they do have those documents, and if the contributor signs it, and then, it is, it shows that they performed their due diligence. >> and the contributor signs it? >> yes, it is the distributor who signs it. >> under the state law, anybody who makes campaign contributions over $100 has to provide certain information including address and occupation. and so, candidates generally use contributor cards so that they can fill out this information. which they must report to us

when they do their campaign reporting. so this, this is where this statement would appear on that card that the donor actually fills out. >> this is always, very tricky. i said that this is an executive director who holds some city contracts and i don't write any checks and i have seen in the past unwhitingly and knowingly that the executive director's partner, who shares a joint checking account is very excited about that candidate and if you can, jack played that out for me and writes the check and actually did not check in with the executive director, who holds the contract, obviously to see, the officer of the agency, is that executive director, or is that particular person who holds that contract for the city? >> responsible for that? >> how is that? >> the people who can make contributions does not make it

to the spouse of someone who can't and in general, for someone who has a joint account, that is used for the specific and whatever you want the partner to make the contribution and provided that the person, does not sign the check. and the signature to the check is the contributor. >> yes. yeah. and it that is a red flag, and you know, the people say so and so made a contribution on the check and it was actually the spouse, and you can avoid that trouble by using a separate account. but the way that the law is written, we ought to require it. >> and i wonder since the underlying problems to make sure that you don't have people who are engaged in any kind of contracts, would do that. whether it might not be a good idea to make the language

mandatory to begin with, rather than just to suggest it. and then we have got an assurance of due diligence and beyond the assurance of due diligence, we have the assurance that contracts that, contributions are not being made by people who should not be making the contributions. >> well, we actually talked with some interested person. and what we were told was, if you made this mandatory, there are, you would dissway contribution and so the candidate would not get the contributions, if you made it mandatory. is what we were told. >> well, there are some contributions that we wanted to sway. >> well, there are contributions that are prohibited. >> yeah, that is what we are trying to do to make sure that those contributions don't get made, and are disswayed and so

the idea that having the difficulty processing the idea while this is going to... >> dissway the contributions is my whole point. >> we want to sway. >> and the feeling was that the feel were just not contribute to the candidates generally. >> yeah. >> and it would be too much work. >> other thing, on the grassroots candidates, and it would be simple for them to, i guess create forms for people to fill out and so that would be another aspect of it. >> i think that is more persuasive, in terms of just someone who make their way up. >> we can decide if it is going to be mandatory. my feeling is that if we made

it optional now, i suspect that most candidates will do it at some point in the future and we can use that as a argument to make it mandatory. >> okay. >> we work on any complaint violation and we are a complaint based, yes. >> and the only way that we know that someone willfully or unwillingly violated this is if someone complaints to you telling you so and so is actually a contractor and they made a contribution. and that is the only way this we would really know. >> right. and the forms that are filed for this particular when the contracts are made by the city officials we don't have a paper fo a